Proof that God is not omnipotent

[tcla75]

A swordsmith was asked by god to make an unbreakable sword. After a year of trying over and over again he came back with what he believed to be an unbreakable sword and showed it to god. God looked over the sword and agreed that it was in fact the best sword he ever saw but with one snap of his fingers broke the sword in two. He turned to the him and said "I'm very disappointed in you." The swordsmith thought about this for a moment and then said "You do it then."

This is not the heavy rock argument but a real world scenario where if there was a god you could ask him to create an unbreakable sword. If he could then it is unbreakable and if you asked him to break it he wouldn't be able to do so. If he could break it then he couldn't create an unbreakable sword.

 

[Shia Islam]

if there was a god you could ask him to create an unbreakable sword. If he could then it is unbreakable and if you asked him to break it he wouldn't be able to do so. If he could break it then he couldn't create an unbreakable sword.

The flaw of this argumentation is that the term "unbreakable " is a relative characteristic, (unbreakable by whom?)

So if you are saying unbreakable by God, then the question includes a contradiction in itself. It's like asking someone can you make this sword bigger than the world and smaller than a tiny stone at the same time.

 

[Peacewise]

God is beyond human logic. And yes the immovable rock argument is essentially the same as the unbreakable sword argument that you've presented, both seek to apply human standards of logic to something that is beyond our understanding.

 

[tcla75]

Well I did pose the question so I will answer yours. When I say unbreakable I mean by the very definition of word. Something that can not be broken. " (unbreakable by whom?)" It does not need a thinking being to change the definition of the word. If I meant unbreakable by anyone but god then that would be a different question. Unbreakable. As in can not be broken. There is no contradiction.

 

[tcla75]

God is beyond human logic. And yes the immovable rock argument is essentially the same as the unbreakable sword argument that you've presented, both seek to apply human standards of logic to something that is beyond our understanding.

That doesn't matter he still can't do it.

 

[mho123]

A swordsmith was asked by god to make an unbreakable sword. After a year of trying over and over again he came back with what he believed to be an unbreakable sword and showed it to god. God looked over the sword and agreed that it was in fact the best sword he ever saw but with one snap of his fingers broke the sword in two. He turned to the him and said "I'm very disappointed in you." The swordsmith thought about this for a moment and then said "You do it then."

This is not the heavy rock argument but a real world scenario where if there was a god you could ask him to create an unbreakable sword. If he could then it is unbreakable and if you asked him to break it he wouldn't be able to do so. If he could break it then he couldn't create an unbreakable sword.

Prehistoric fairy tales ,, you are living in The past man ,, comeback to today ,,comeback to reality ,,
swords and goldsmiths ??? Huh ?? Lord of THE rings?
Waste of time if you ask me
wake up ,, we are in 2010 ,, not BC
you need à serious update if you ask me ,,
but thats my opinion ,,
good luck ,,

 

[Storm]

This is not the heavy rock argument

Yeah, it is. And it's no more impressive with the details changed.

but a real world scenario where if there was a god you could ask him to create an unbreakable sword.

What, precisely, makes you think this has anything to do with the "real world?"

If he could then it is unbreakable and if you asked him to break it he wouldn't be able to do so. If he could break it then he couldn't create an unbreakable sword.

Omnipotence does not include being able to defeat itself.

 

[Willamena]

This is not the heavy rock argument but a real world scenario...

Haha.

 

[tarasan]

by Christian standards you are violating the doctrine that omnipotience is used to describe so its not really the best arguement...

 

[Storm]

by Christian standards you are violating the doctrine that omnipotience is used to describe so its not really the best arguement...

1) Asking question is a violation of doctrine?

2) What doctrine are you talking about?

 

[Willamena]

1) Asking question is a violation of doctrine?

I think he's referring to an image of "God" supplied by doctrine. No idea which, though.

 

[Rakhel]

The definition of unbreakable is not something that cannot be broken but something that cannot easily be broken. There is a difference.

 

[meogi]

1) An Omnipotent God would still be unable to do the logically impossible.
2) If they could, we would not be able to comprehend the action or outcome. (This apple is not an apple.)

 

[tarasan]

1) Asking question is a violation of doctrine?

no asking God do do that is reidiculous because it asks him violate perfect being theology.

2) What doctrine are you talking about?

the doctrine of perfect being theology, which states that for a being to be divine it must maximally great, as in be the greatest of said thing, which is why we have things like omnipotient, omniscient etc. these statements help us describe God without putting any real limits on it therefor allowing there to be something potentially greater than god.

however what he is saying is asking for God to be illogical which God cannot be due to perfect being theology as it would make him imperfect aka not maximally great, therefore the statement really is mute.

Im not very good at articulating myself by typing but i hope that makes sense...

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Tales do not constitute proof.

 

[Random]

Omnipotence does not include being able to defeat itself.

Bravo, Storm; that's the answer, indeed. Frubals much deserved for you.

 

[tcla75]

The definition of unbreakable is not something that cannot be broken but something that cannot easily be broken. There is a difference.

Ahh no I know what I meant in my head when I asked the question I meant can not be broken. I have seen some slimy ways to get around this paradox before like its a double negative or saying its a contradiction but not able to say why so they use an example of something else that is a contradiction but this takes the biscut saying that I did not mean what I said.

 

[tcla75]

Omnipotence does not include being able to defeat itself.

Yes it does look up the meaning of the word. It means a being that there is nothing he can not do. It is impossible for any such being to exist.

 

[tcla75]

1) An Omnipotent God would still be unable to do the logically impossible.
2) If they could, we would not be able to comprehend the action or outcome. (This apple is not an apple.)

You use the example of this apple is not an apple in what I presume is an argument against the unbreakable sword parable. This is one of the worst counter arguments because as I said earlier it uses an example of something that is completely different to what I said. It is like you saying that your cat has brown fur and me saying that is not possible because a hoover can't be a dog. Ya a hover can't be a dog we all know that but it doesn't prove your cat hasn't brown fur though. Don't use examples of other things that are contradictions if there is a flaw in my logic then point out where?

 

[Storm]

Yes it does look up the meaning of the word. It means a being that there is nothing he can not do. It is impossible for any such being to exist.

That's an infantile argument.

Just because we can come up with linguistic games and logical impossibilities, that doesn't mean God is not omnipotent.

And for the record, I don't believe God is omnipotent.